First, the former secretary of State did nothing illegal by having a private email system. The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed to “policies” that were violated but cited no laws that were violated and said these policies were inconsistently applied and need to be further clarified in the future. (This is a point I have made here before.)Second, Clinton was not trying to hide her use of her own private email address. In fact, 90 percent of all the emails she sent went to State Department employees with a state.gov email address, which she thought, mistakenly, would be automatically preserved on the department’s email server. How could she be seeking to hide her use of a private email address if she sent her private email to so many people at State? (Not understanding how e-mail works is not an indictable crime.)Third, no email received or sent by Clinton was labeled at any level of classification. Multiple references in the media and in the right-wing blogosphere to Clinton emails containing “classified” information all refer to post-facto opinions — what could be accurately called classification by hindsight. State Department experts disagreed with many of those opinions. (Lot's of differing opinions on this, but I tend to think that Davis is correct.)Fourth, according to the OIG, there is no evidence that Clinton’s private server was ever successfully hacked. In other words, all the dire and dark warnings from partisan Republicans about the secretary of State risking the nation’s security by using a private server are, in fact, all speculation — based on no facts whatsoever. (Yes I know that this Guccifer fellow is bragging that he broke in, but so far there is no real evidence to back that up.) Fifth, as pointed out by the inspector general, there was ample precedent for the use of private emails for official and private business, from Colin Powell to senior aides for Condoleezza Rice. (True, though people for some reason want to differentiate between using a private e-mail address and having a private server.)

Okay so there are those who might dismiss this guy's take on the situation based on his relationship with the Clintons but he seems to have the main facts down. (Yes I realize that dissenting opinions with links to back them up are being posted as we speak.)

First, many government officials have been using personal email for government business. I've been tracking several FOIA lawsuits for some time, and several have to do with government officials in various departments using personal email.

The government doesn't encourage using personal email, and people can't access private email in secure areas, but for the most part, government officials have been allowed to use private email, as long as they make some effort to ensure the emails are FOIA searchable. In many cases, all the person would have to do is forward the email on to their government email address, or someone else's government email address.

Now, as to the question of sending confidential email via private email address, the implications of doing so would be the same whether a person used a private email address, or a State email address. Email is inherently insecure. The general State email addresses are not secured to any degree beyond what most personal email addresses are secured. You can't use a personal email address to send confidential emails, but you can't use a State email address, either; not through the internet using a mobile device or home computer—not without very special precautions being taken.

So, let's fixate a little less on the private versus State email address. The issue of using a private email address is solely about whether the email is transparent, not secure.

The FBI doesn't care about transparency, only security. It only cares about whether the private email server Clinton used was hacked or not. We already know that the State Department's servers have been hacked.

Unless the Justice Department decides to indict several current and former employees of the State and other Departments—at least three Administrations back—and other assorted and sundry people, it's not going to indict Hillary Clinton.

Now this Crooks and Liars writer does not claim to have a law degree, but they seem to have a pretty good handle on the ins and outs of this "scandal."

However while this writer may not be a lawyer, Hillary Clinton IS a lawyer, as is her husband, and many of their close friends in the Clinton inner circle. Which means that if there were ANY possibility of an actual indictment, they would have already taken that into consideration.

Based on Hillary's attitude and overall mood on the campaign trail I tend to think she is not exactly losing any sleep over the possibility of being indicted.

And do you know who else has a law degree? President Obama, who said this about the e-mail server:

“I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America’s national security,” the president said. “There’s a carelessness in terms of managing emails that she has owned and she recognizes. But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.”

I will say once again that if the Democratic establishment REALLY thought there was a chance that Hillary would be indicted, they would have put the kibosh on her campaign a long time ago.

So no, Hillary Clinton is NOT going to be indicted over her e-mail server.

So the people voting in the primaries today can fill in the oval next to her name with complete confidence that the only obstacle between her and winning the White House is one Oompa Loompa colored egomaniac named Donald Trump.

128 comments:

"First from Lanny Davis who is a Hillary supporter, and also a lawyer who provided legal council to Bill Clinton."It's counsel.Did he advise him to lie to the American people, perjure himself and lose his law license?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXsLanny Davis,huh?

Yes, Lanny, one of his latest PR jobs was slinging BS for the indicted PA attorney general Kathleen Kane who will go to trial for perjury, among other charges, in August. (Kane ran Hillary's 2008 campaign for part of PA and Bill campaigned for Kane.) The Clintons have gone far with such able help as Lanny Davis, and other professional image makers, along with their end-runs around the law but they couldn't help Kane enough to keep her out of the dock.

Thank you, Gryph. Of course there will be no indictment. The President is endorsing her this week! The only people hanging on to this are part of "The Hunting of Hillary" movement now that Sanders is officially non-viable.

Last night, I attended a 5-hour HRC lead by presenters Mary Steenbergen, Jamie Foxx (and his daughters), John Legend, Eva Longoria, Cher, Ricky Martin, Christina Aguillera, Magic Johnson & Stevie Wonder. Additional speakers included LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, Congressman Adam Schiff, CA Lt. Governer Gavin Newsom--and more. Hillary was, of course, the star when she appeared, introduced by Shonda Rimes. The personal testimonials and sharing of Hillary's accomplishments and resilience was so inspirational! And every single speaker said to go out & vote, no matter what the AP says! I am proud to have voted for her! Can't wait to find out who she picks for VP!

@6:27 Exactly. As someone who's watched Hillary since her self-congratulatory Wellesly College commencement speech, I see her power drive commensurate with her husband's. Bill as a young man, so aware of his image already, wrote his infamous draft letter, as some may recall Bill managed to be was both for and against the Vietnam war, in ROTC and against it—claiming both ROTC time and anti-war activist status. His infamous draft letter, written at a time when his age group males were getting slaughtered in Vietnam, is a breathtaking insight into a sophistry and self-promotion that served him well in politics for many years.

Hillary is a neocon, she may very well start more wars with devastating consequences, including a nuclear one in eastern Europe.

The Clintons have been silent on the vast suffering brought about by the neocons march of empire, and seem to have no intention of stopping the blind destruction of whole countries with Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan laid waste by their wars and regime changes, countries that are now failed states-- now harboring violent jihadists and weaponry funded by neocon allies—the Gulf States. With more illegal assassinations and coups, most recently Hillary approved the US backed coup in Honduras that empowered a brutal dictatorship there; the neocons will continue their reign of terror and incessant war if Hillary wins the WH.

A sobering view from the great reporter John Pilger that I would not recommend to those who want to stay high on the kool-aid of Amercian exceptionalism:

“The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,”But this>The timing of the donation by Trump is notable because the now presumptive Republican presidential nominee has said he expects and receives favors from politicians to whom he gives money.

"When I want something I get it," Trump said at an Iowa rally in January. "When I call, they kiss my ass. It's true."

Per this article it was not only FL who did this, but also Texas. See these final paragraphs of the above article.

"The Associated Press first reported last week that then-Texas Attorney Greg Abbott received $35,000 from Trump, three years after his office in 2010 dropped a proposed lawsuit over Trump U. Following AP's report, former Texas Deputy Chief of Consumer Protection John Owens said the case had been dropped for political reasons. He also made public a detailed internal summary of what he called his staff's strong case against Trump.

A spokesman for Abbott, now the Texas governor, said the case was dropped after Trump's organization agreed to stop offering his namesake real-estate seminars in the state. Within months, Trump University was out of business nationwide.

By choosing not to pursue Trump in court, the GOP attorneys general left the unhappy students in their states on their own to try to get refunds from the celebrity businessman.

7:42>"Trump U’s approach to education is that it basically views students as little more than a source of revenue."http://thinkprogress.org/education/2016/06/06/3784966/trump-university-education-policy/

That is a great article! Thank you! It comes at the same points Gryph makes above, but from the angle of the press coverage of it: for click bait, creating controversy for the illusion of the "horse race" and ratings.

Perhaps it is my perspective - wait, I know it is. GOODSTUFF is repeating old knowledge - the article is from March. Jobsanger updates their info daily. Their opinion includes all sides of an issue - for the good or bad.

OT Pricks>GUIDELINES, "journalists such as O’Reilly should “deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.”

What is the anti-Hillary email obsessed poster going to do when Hillary isn't indicted? Find something else to obsess over? Look at the volume of posts this nut case has penned. All for naught. He/she sways no minds with their nonsense. They know nothing except what they want to believe (either that or they are paid). What a waste of time. They remind me of the mentally ill Alicia.

Agree! The person is not a liberal & is obviously part of the "Hunting of Hillary" movement because of his rabid, prolific anti-Hillary propaganda. And that poster cannot make a cogent, rational case for anything positive. Disturbing! (I cannot imagine going through life that way.)

Even the fantasy that Sanders could sweep DC makes no difference at this point.

I keep creating models that are very favorable to Sanders and are completely unrealistic, and it's still difficult to come up with one that gets him over 50% of the pledged delegates.

Hand him 100% of SD, ND, DC, MT and NM = +113

1569+113 = 1682

2026 - 1682 = 344

He'd need to win NJ and CA with over 57% of the vote. And remember, that's with Clinton not getting a single delegate from the other 5 races, four of them today.

When you run Sanders 90% to Clinton 10% in those 5 contests, or Sanders 80% to Clinton 20% (or 70/30 or what I think the best possible outcome for Sanders could be, around 60/40), the margin he needs in NJ and CA gets even steeper and less realistic.

I'm prognosticating that after tonight Hillary will have 2167 delegates and Bernie will have 1865. And I still think my model is very conservative. I expect I will be off by underestimating her rather than overestimating her (I calculated with a narrow CA win; the mailed-in votes suggest she will probably do better than the 51% I used).

Everybody needs to admit if the Republican driven acquisitions against Secretary Clinton were criminal actions then the Republican driven committees would have found Secretary Clinton guilty before Secretary Clinton becomes the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

He just might - or he might be forced to drop out, so they can annoint RMoney at their convention.IF tRump should win, mark my words, 'something' will happen to him, and he will have some unfortunate accident. Because he is not a team player, and he will not follow the ReThug script.

"Franck: For all his talk of a ‘movement,’ Bernie Sanders bid is nothing but a failure"

Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the presidency captured the imagination of the of the left-wing of the Democratic Party and the media, but it was a sloppy and overrated affair that never mustered the discipline it needed to seriously challenge Hillary Clinton.

For all the wild gesticulation and claims of an unfair system, Sanders fared worse against Clinton than she did against Barack Obama in 2008.

The Vermont senator is fond of telling his audiences that he created a movement, despite the fact that the purveyors of conventional wisdom didn’t think he had a chance. Turns out, they were right.

We’ll see if Bernie’s movement has legs. Even money says few will remember his name in 10 years...

Polls show that 70% of Sanders' supporters WILL vote for HRC. Thank you to those people; I have supported a candidate I loved who lost before and I know how depressing it is. I applaud your character strength to put the country before all else in November.

Lot of chatter out there 'bout the emails/server.Here's what we DO know:We know that sworn testimony from aides conflicts with her previous statements. We know they have seized a bunch of equipment and given her server admin(Pagliano) immunity.We know that her people at the State Department suddenly have major amounts of amnesia in sworn depositions. We know there are a lot of classified documents stored on what was an undocumented server in her possession, and that uncleared individuals were given full access to those documents. We know there was an attempt to destroy around 30,000 documents as well as the forensic trail on the server itself. We know that the FBI claims to have recovered some or all of these documents. We know that she failed to return the documents as required, and only did so when facing threat of subpoena. We know a ton of the documents produced were produced in partially, heavily or fully redacted form. We know that some documents contain reference to personnel who weren't supposed to be discussed openly. We know that she is alleged to have several top secret documents as well as thousands of lower level classified documents. We know that she used an unsecure blackberry after being told not to during annual security review(s).Go James Comey!

"However while this writer may not be a lawyer, Hillary Clinton IS a lawyer, as is her husband, and many of their close friends in the Clinton inner circle. Which means that if there were ANY possibility of an actual indictment, they would have already taken that into consideration."

I love it when people use the "well they are really smart lawyers ......." lol.

Honestly that has to be one of the dumbest angles ever to provide cover.

Remember when Bill the lawyer was historically impeached as president for lying? lol.

Get off your high horse, 8 AM! Many, many men have screwed around on their wives! Just look around you throughout the years! Hillary and Bill decided to keep their marriage together and worked things out.

No one goes through their lives being perfect - to include you, I'll bet!

I think you're the dumbest one here, @8:00. You are defending the child molester (Hastert) and adulterers (Livingston, Gingrich) who "impeached" him. I think we know all about your IQ that we need to. Must be about Sarah Palin's range?

@8:24"You are defending the child molester (Hastert) and adulterers (Livingston, Gingrich) who "impeached" him."How in the fuck did you arrive at that retarded ass statement?@8:00 stated the truth about what happened to Bill Clinton. I agree that it was an insane chapter in history and those hypocrites were assholes.Shit,that probably is the most expensive blowjob in history!I love what Larry Flynt did by offering the $1million for dirt and turned up Livingston's cheating ass bullshit.Larry Flynt saved Bill's ass.http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-12-18/news/9812180366_1_impeachment-house-speaker-elect-bob-livingston-monica-lewinsky

"Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence."https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Greenwald can't live in the US anymore because he owes $123,000 in back taxes. That's also why he's against the US gov't.

No one writing from another country is an expert on this election without being here; it's crazy enough for those of us actually living through it. Why would anyone cite a known tax evader anyway? He's a scofflaw.

I noticed she had the ring on her left hand in the pic where she's holding up the fish (she made sure it was seen), and then in the pic on Dakota's Twitter it appears as if she may have a ring on her left hand. In the pic at the beauty salon it appears that she may have the ring on her right hand.

Commenting on an article by Lanny Davis, Gryphen wrote: people for some reason want to differentiate between using a private e-mail address and having a private server.

By "using a private e-mail address" I take it that you mean using an email address that doesn't end in ".gov"—for example, "sos@hotmail.com" or "sos@arress.xyz" … or "sos@onlyme.org". By "having a private server" I take it that you mean having a mail server that is not administered by HotMail, or by "arress.xyz" (registered in Panama) but is administered by, and in the physical custody of, the principal user or somebody they trust.

If you use a HotMail account, or a "arress.xyz" account, you are at the mercy of the employees of that organization. If your "onlyme.org" server is in your house, is set up securely, and only grants access to people approved by you, it may not be completely secure, but it will generally be more secure.

I was responding to a specific remark by Gryphen in the article, about "differentiat[ing] between using a private e-mail address and having a private server."

The connection between that and your above remark is, at best, unclear.

I am, however, willing (sometimes) to respond to general questions about email, such as:

Got an "explanation" for the unsecure Blackberry that Hillary was told not to use and did so anyway all over the world?

It's my understanding that a Blackberry does not necessarily use SSL/TLS or any other form of encryption if not carefully set up and carefully managed. So it is not impossible that her Blackberry, as used by her, was insecure. However, I have no evidence other than your unsupported claim that she ever used it for traffic whose security requirements exceeded those met by her system.

You give no citation for your claim that she was "told not to use" a Blackberry.

You give no citation for your claim that she used it "all over the world".

So I don't think an "explanation" is really called for. Come back if you (ever) have some facts to cite.

Trump Campaign Tried To Intimidate Third Party Candidate, Called His Family

...Then he floated the idea to his wife, Nancy, a bestselling author and ghostwriter for Bristol and Sarah Palin, among others. “I talked to Nancy, and she said, ‘I think you should consider it,” French says.

...The prospect of a French candidacy did get the attention of serious conservatives, who were quick to offer their support. “I know David French to be an honorable, intelligent and patriotic person,” Romney wrote on Twitter. “I look forward to hearing what he has to say.” Sasse told National Review last week, “David French is a serious, trustworthy man who has served his country with honor. I’m interested to hear what he says in the coming weeks.” It was enough, apparently, to spook the Trump campaign. Sources say that on Wednesday, influential supporters of the campaign, prompted by the campaign itself, began reaching out to the Republican National Committee, to Kristol, and to French, attempting to quash the bid. One Trump operative reached French’s wife’s family in Tennessee and told them, according to French, that he was “instructed to call and deliver a message that the race would be very difficult for me.” “It was a pretty big assault that really put pressure on David that this not happen,” says a source familiar with the communications.

@8:48Yup."This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people."Uh-huh...

@9:58There are two FBI investigations.One concerning the server/emails.The other concerning the Clinton Foundation and it's connection(missing 30k emails) with the State Dept. and quid pro quo therein.That would be the RICO you refer to.You're aware that Huma and Pagliano both drew paychecks from bothsimultaneously,right?

The FBI is investigating the twenty two top secret documents found on Clinton's server. These documents were classified at the highest level. Who transferred them to a private server in violation of the law?

So sick of Bernie. Hillary's 3 million votes ahead right now and all he talks about is finagling the delegate count. A supposed man of the people is completely ignoring 3 million of those people he claims he would represent.

It's amazing how they have zoned in on Hilary and won't stop. Why? Is it because she is a woman? Is it because she is a democrat? Why? It's hard to fathom. And when she gets elected the Republicans will hold our country in another chokehold everytime because bottomline they don't want to work with a democrat. It's a wonder that Donald is their candidate. They, the Republicans, have written the book on temper tantrums, boycotts, and whatever other tactic they can dredge up to the forefront to strangulate this country. And "we" the people voted these assholes in. I am positive they hurt the people who voted them in more than those of us who didn't. The Republicans as they are now, are not doing anything good for this country other than doing for their big business backers, and the religious right and their crazy ideas. Now they have the Donald and all the incited followers and they are still trying to hold him off. Embrace him, you made this atmosphere. And Hilary may already know she will be hounded to the inch of her life by these guys. They probably hire people to do that so they don't have to. It's old ploy and tactics. Been used forever. She has tiring year ahead of her. You gotta wonder, is she doing this for her own personal gratification, or does she really want things to work? Like Obama did? Like Elizabeth Warren aims for? But why does the Republican party target only Hilary? Just wish we could see in the heart of these men.

If you are going to do so much deep thinking about Hillary, you might want to learn to spell her name right.

So you must be blind to the fact that every high profile politician gets their names and reputations dragged thru the mud. You don't seem to grasp the concept that Bernie and Trump have been thoroughly trashed also.

Many politicians have hated Hillary their entire careers. They're not going to stop now. They've hated her since she changed her name around, truly a horrible and terrible thing for a good wife to do. And she changed her hairstyles far too many times for any male observer to tolerate. Then Holy Fuck she showed she had a brain by preparing an entire new health care plan for the country. The guys had fun stomping on that but it wasn't enough to stop this potent woman, so they've worked their balls off on finding other "scandal" to satisfy their indignation over her. Let them keep shitting their pants. She's got this.

This is not some Goudy, Republican, Benghazi fake investigation; it's the FBI and the State department. Sorry G it's not going to go away, even if she is elected. Then we could have another Clinton impeached, but this time she will be forced out of office.

I work for the Federal government. When I started there was no .gov email, at least not in my agency. We all had .edu or other personal accounts. Things evolved since then. For a while we all routinely used multiple accounts for work. When the .gov email was introduced, you could absolutely count on it to be the least reliable email system -- the most likely to have problems, the most difficult to access. And let's not forget that the Chinese massively hacked .gov email some years back. Over time the system has gotten better and there's been a stronger push for all official business to be done from our .gov accounts. At the time that Clinton began as Secretary of State, things were a lot different than they are now. This is a non-issue, much as the 949s of the world want to claim otherwise.

I say what I say based on 20+ years experience working for the Federal government, 348p. All the air of authority in the world doesn't change the fact that you and your ilk are talking out of your a$$es.

Since the dawn of the 2016 Democratic primary, there has been a cold war between the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaigns for the heart and brain of liberal Hollywood. But on the eve of the California primary, the wads of Hollywood-kingmaker money have lined up squarely behind Team Hillary—with the entertainment industry giving her $12 million, which laps the roughly one million dollars Sanders has collected.“The sense [in Hollywood] is that Sen. Sanders needs to step aside pronto—that money was always going to be Clinton money,” one longtime Democratic fundraiser in Los Angeles told The Daily Beast. “Even if [Bernie] wins California, all that money and support and endorsements isn't going anywhere…Hillary has been Hollywood's candidate for a long time.”

Read more athttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/07/step-aside-bernie-sanders-hollywood-rainmakers-are-ready-for-hillary-clinton.html

Sure looked that way last night at the Greek! The way each star or singer talked about HRC and exactly why they support her was thrilling! Cher was my favorite in term of personal stories about Hillary; on policy, I appreciated so much discussion on the environment, LGBTQ equality, women's rights, gun control, and John Legend's profound thoughts on mass incarceration.

"It began when European settlers first treated native peoples and enslaved Africans as subhuman savages.""As it was practiced in the Jim Crow South, however, it was a form of public, state-approved torture, often involving the castration or disembowelment of the living victim, sometimes followed by death by fire."

About Me

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.